Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Welcome to the Watcher's Council, a blogging group consisting of some of the most incisive blogs in the 'sphere, and the longest running group of its kind in existence. Every week, the members nominate two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council.Then we vote on the best two posts, with the results appearing on Friday morning.

Council News:

You can, too! Want to see your work appear on the Watcher’s Council homepage in our weekly contest listing? Didn’t get nominated by a Council member? No worries.

To bring something to my attention, simply head over to Joshuapundit and post the title and a link to the piece you want considered along with an e-mail address (mandatory, but of course it won't be published) in the comments section no later than Monday 6PM PST in order to be considered for our honorable mention category. Then return the favor by creating a post on your site linking to the Watcher’s Council contest for the week when it comes out on Wednesday morning

Simple, no?

It's a great way of exposing your best work to Watcher’s Council readers and Council members while grabbing the increased traffic and notoriety. And how good is that, eh?

Monday, June 27, 2016

"This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands,-
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England."

Britain has voted on whether to stay in the EU or exit. In spite of the 'leave' campaign being massively outspent, demonized in the press and harangued and threatened by foreign leaders including America's President Obama, the British made their choice and they chose clearly to leave.

President Obama in particular had a significant effect on the vote. After his speech threatening that if Britain left the EU they "would go to the back of the queue as far as trade is concerned" and that the special relationship between the U.S. and the UK would be changed, the poll numbers for leave skyrocketed. Nigel Farage, leader of the eurosceptic UK Independence Party (UKip) quipped that Obama's little screed was so helpful to the Brexit camp that he should "come over more often."

The election itself told a clear story about where Britain is today. England and Wales largely voted for Brexit, with the exception of pockets in large cities like Muslim-dominated Tower Hamlets in London. Northern Ireland voted remain, but that was thanks to majorities in locations closer to Eire, the Irish Republic.

The real giveaway was Scotland, which voted 'remain' by almost two to one. More on that later, but the United Kingdom isn't really united anymore.

The issues boiled done to this in Britain's case: money, migrants and sovereignty.

Just take a look at this figure: According to the latest UK Treasury figures, the UK's net contribution to the EU for 2014/15 was £8.8bn - nearly double what it was in 2009/10. What they got back in the form of 'rebates'(mostly in the form of regional development grants and payments to farmers) was just £4.6bn in 2014/15. And this amount doesn't take into consideration various taxes and fees levied on a suffering British public, nor the high cost of complying with EU diktats on virtually all aspects of daily living.

Speaking of EU diktats, another significant factor in this election was Mutti Merkal's unilateral decision to open the EU gates to over a million Muslim migrants with more to come. The unelected EU bureaucrats, believe it or not, actually passed 'legislation' mandating that all EU countries take in a set amount of these Muslim 'refugees' or face a €300,000 fine per refugee for every one refused entry. That fell through when a number of countries flatly refused to comply, but the very fact that the EU minions felt they had the right to try and impose it did not escape notice. That was especially true in Britain where they already have a significant problem with their existing Muslim population, many of whom are disproportionately on the dole.

Another factor, of course, is the schengen visas, which allow these 'refugees' -or for that matter, migrants from any EU country once they're accepted as residents - to automatic access to Britain without any formalities or vetting.

And the final reason was not just that the UK is one of the successful nations in the EU whose taxpayers were propping up countries with failed economies like Spain, Greece and Italy among others. It was the increasing strangulation of national sovereignty by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.

Behind all this, of course, was an effort to bind Germany to Europe, climaxed with German de facto domination in the name of “European unity.” It's the Germans whom benefit most from the EU scam, since it allows them to value their exports in cheaper euros rather than higher value Deutschmarks. And former East German STASI member Angela Merkel has a first hand knowledge of how such totalitarian control works.

It's no accident that Merkel's new proposal in reaction to Brexit involves transforming what's left of the EU into a kind of superstate, where EU countries would have no control over the right to have their own army, criminal law, taxation system or central bank, as well as control over their own borders, which means they too will be inundated by Muslim 'refugees.'. All of these factors will be controlled and mandated from Brussels:

The foreign ministers of France and Germany are due to reveal a blueprint to effectively do away with individual member states in what is being described as an “ultimatum”. [...]

The plot has sparked fury and panic in Poland - a traditional ally of Britain in the fight against federalism - after being leaked to Polish news channel TVP Info.

The public broadcaster reports that the bombshell proposal will be presented to a meeting of the Visegrad group of countries - made up of Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia - by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier later today.

Excerpts of the nine-page report were published today as the leaders of Germany, France and Italy met in Berlin for Brexit crisis talks.

Given the sentiment in Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, I doubt this will be well received. And Britain's exit has sparked calls for referendums in other EU countries, particularly Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland and Austria as well as the Visograd countries.

The numbers have undoubtedly gone up since this poll was taken prior to Britain voting to leave.

Of course, France's socialist government has refused to hold a referendum since Hollande's government feeds on EU subsidies. But even if the highly unpopular Hollande isn't removed from office before then, he and the Socialists will have to answer to the voters in 2017. And Marine Le Pen's National Front is growing by leaps and bounds.

The same is true in the Netherlands, where Geert Wilders' Freedom Party (PVV) is likely to double its seats in the Dutch Parliament.

In reaction to Brexit, Wilders said, "We want be in charge of our own country, our own money, our own borders, and our own immigration policy."

“If I become prime minister, there will be a referendum in the Netherlands on leaving the European Union as well. Let the Dutch people decide.”

If I had to guess on which countries will hold referendums next, I'd say traditionally eurosceptic Denmark, Finland, where the few refugees they taken in are not working out at all well and the Visograd countries. Both Denmark and Finland have thriving economies and a traditionally independent nature, and the Visograd countries don't want the Muslim refugees. Spain and Greece are also distinct possibilities, since leaving the debtor's prison the Germans have set up for them would allow them to dump the euro and either pay off their debts in far cheaper drachmas and pesetas or default on them entirely. Neither country has a thriving economy anyway and no one is going to lend them any more significant money in the near future, so they have little to lose. Also, both are popular tourist spots and that isn't going to change either, so cheaper currencies would make vacations in those countries a bargain. And what they do produce, mostly agricultural and food products, could be priced very competitively on the markets.

Fortunately, Britain held onto the Pound rather then being sucked into the euro, so after a period of fluctuation, the UK's basically strong economy should survive just fine. Both Norway and Switzerland likewise decided not to join the EU, kept their own currency and negotiated good trade agreements with the EU. Regardless of the bitterness Merkel and others might have, they will have to do the same with the UK or suffer the loss of millions in trade, money the EU or what's left of it is going to need badly.

Another bonus for Britain is that since the Pound has dropped, her exports will be far cheaper and thus more desirable worldwide.

Another change in store is a major change in Britain's politics. Tory PM David Cameron has already said he's resigning as soon as possible, probably by this fall. And his likely successor is none other than London's former Conservative mayor, Boris Johnson, a firm nationalist whom many Brits regard as the UK's Donald Trump.

Johnson campaigned heavily for 'leave' and has become quite popular in the Conservative Party as a result. According to all the polls, he's the odds on favorite to replace David Cameron as head of the party and the UK's Prime Minister.

Meanwhile, Britain's far left Labour Party is in major trouble.

Labour's openly anti-semitic, pro-Hamas and pro-Hezbollah party leader Jeremy Corbyn has already cost Labour many of its traditional supporters. But his ineffective campaign for 'remain' caused most of Labour's shadow cabinet* to resign and for him to fire others who expressed doubts about his leadership. He appears to have no intention of quitting as party leader, which is going to be problematic come the next election.

Another problem Labour has is the probable loss of a major source of votes, Scotland. The majority of votes that used to go Labour are now going to the socialist Scottish National Party (SNP), and post Brexit, Labour is likely to be shut out entirely. Scotland likes those EU subsidies very much, thank you and voted almost two to one to stay in the EU. The SNP will almost certainly push for a new referendum for independence from Britain.

Of course, it remains to be seen whether the referendum happens and it passes (it likely will if it's held, in my opinion)and if it does, whether the EU if it still exists would allow it in as a member. Taken by itself, Scotland would be, after all, one of those countries who receives far more from the EU than it contributes.

An independent Scotland would likely doom Labour to minority status for quite some time. with Labour non-competitive and a leader like Boris Johnson in charge, we might very well see a resurgent Britain.

If the Brexit vote proves noting else, it shows that the British Lion still retains some of its teeth and that what Winston Churchill called 'this Island race' still retains a lot of its age old love for freedom.

* 'Shadow cabinet' is the term used in the British system to describe faux cabinet ministers named by the opposition party that's not in power. So for instance, there might be a shadow foreign minister, a shadow education minster, et cetera. They have no actual power, but are supposedly experts or at least knowledgeable in their area who keep up with their specialty and might or might not assume those portfolios if their party won the next election.

The reason for this is that unlike many other countries, there's no 'lame duck' period, and power can change hands immediately after an election or a vote of no confidence so these 'shadow ministers' could actually assume those portfolios as real ministers in that event.

Every week on Monday, the Council, members of the Watcher's Council Community and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher's Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week's question: What Was Your Reaction To Donald Trump's Speech This Week?

Trump nailed HRC's hair to the floor so tight - she's unable to even blink!

"The Hillary Clinton foreign policy has cost America thousands of lives and trillions of dollars – and unleashed ISIS across the world. No Secretary of State has been more wrong, more often, and in more places than Hillary Clinton. Her decisions spread death, destruction and terrorism everywhere she touched."

Like a torpedo strike, the speech blasted great gaping holes in HRC's curious blend of failed progressivism, unbridled globalism and self enriching international crony socialism that may very well be criminal.

Trump's first 100 Days agenda should totally close the deal with many including any stand offish cats.

Stately McDaniel Manor: The Republican Party has a well-deserved reputation of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The “Stupid Party,” routinely violates Ronald Reagan’s 11 th Commandment, and brilliantly attacks its own,leaving Democrats unscathed. But this election year, Donald Trump may serve as a Republican red on red force multiplier beyond imagination.

For perhaps the first time since his campaign began, Trump delivered a professional, rational, and necessary speech in which he actually attacked Hillary Clinton by telling the truth about her. What’s that you say? He’s done that before? Yes, but not consistently, coherently, and primarily by tweeting.

Trump’s biggest problem thus far, beside the fact that he is a dangerous narcissist, is that his entire focus has been on maintaining the purity of being Donald Trump. He absolutely, pig-headedly refuses to adapt to the demands of a presidential campaign. He does not work and play well with others, and behaves like a cheap, prickly street thug: “who you lookin’ at? You dissin’ me? You dissin’ me?!” This leads him to continually go off message-- as though he has a consistent, coherent message from which to deviate-- attacking primarily potential friends and supporters, including Republicans of all stripes, and ignoring his actual political enemies. He whines that this person, or that group, hasn’t been nice to him or treated him with proper respect. He threatens to take his marbles and go home if he isn’t treated in the manner to which he has become accustomed.

Grow the hell up, Trump.

He seems incapable of realizing that the thousands that come to his rallies are already in the bag. He doesn’t know that their numbers aren’t sufficient to elect him president, and that it is the far, far larger numbers of Americans that he never sees that he must convince to vote for him. He thinks he can get away with ignoring the Republican Party and he can win without it, despite the fact that he has built no national mechanisms to get out the vote and November is coming--fast.

Trump thinks vacuous slogans like “make America great again,” are all he needs. How will you make America great again Mr. Trump? “I’ll make America so great you won’t believe it!” But how? “Because I will; you’ll see.”

Part of his arrogance has been his insistence on not using a teleprompter, on winging it onstage, which at this stage of the campaign ensures not only that he won’t consistently communicate coherent, rational policies and principle, he’ll ramble, make idiotic gaffes, and fail to effectively define Hillary Clinton, the most corrupt, weak, and dangerous candidate the Democrats may have ever put forth. Trump need not use a teleprompter all the time-- Ronald Reagan often spoke from notes he wrote -- but Trump needs it. That he is not a professional politician has aided him to this point, but no longer.

The speech was a good start. It framed Hillary Clinton as the liar, criminal and national security disaster she already is, but those messages must be driven home again and again and again, consistently, every day, every week, not only with speeches, but clever ads.

Trump can’t do it himself. He has no consistent principles that inform policies. His life has been dedicated to deal making, to doing whatever is necessary to make more and more money. Those skills can be an asset for any president, but only if he makes the adjustments necessary to obtain advantage for America instead of Trump. It’s time to discover those principles, to pledge belief in and adherence to those policies, and to shut down the ego machine and spin up the political machine.

It’s time, over and over again, and absolutely consistently, to tell America exactly how Trump intends to make America great again. If Trump can’t do that, he’ll lead the Stupid Party into being the Insanely, Terminally Stupid Party. We’ll end up with a progressive Supreme Court, a Progressive Congress, and a Progressive President.

The Republicans have been able to do almost nothing when they hold majority control of Congress. If they lose even one house, they’ll have the perfect excuse to do nothing but help Progressives enact their agenda. America will be no more, but by all that is holy, Trump will still be, pure and shining, Trump.

He needs to decide-- yesterday-- which is more important: America or his ego?

The Glittering Eye: The speech was pretty good. Mr. Trump certainly can play offense. Whether he can play defense or needs to remains to be seen. He clearly understands Sec. Clinton's defects and what his supporters think of her. I don't think he'll convince anyone because everyone's already made up their minds. The only real question is who will turn out and vote?

As to whether he can win, I genuinely have no idea. As I've repeatedly said over at my place, I find this election cycle completely baffling. I think that everyone has lost their minds. We have a corrupt, incompetent criminal running against a hipshooting blowhard.

I also think that lying to pollsters has become incredibly commonplace.

Bookworm Room : The speech showed four things that I think are all to the good:

1. Trump did what his supporters wanted, which was to go directly to Hillary's jugular.

2. He's working his way towards slightly more conventional statesmanship in his speeches. If he could just learn not to use every speech as a business promo, he'd be more effective.

3. He was smart to fire Lewandowski, who was the right man for the primaries, but too much of a mafia enforcer type for the general campaign.

4. If it was indeed his children and their spouses who urged him to fire Lewandowski and become more disciplined, he should continue to listen to them.

If Trump can master discipline and statesmanship, while keeping close to his primary promises (blogging illegal immigration, greater protections against the Islamist threat, supporting Israel, knocking the pins out from under the media, getting things done, etc), I think he will -- as Scott Adams promises -- run a successful campaign. To the extent Hillary's polling higher now, I see three things at work: the post-primary bounce now that Bernie is gone; slanted polls from the Dems, the media (but I repeat myself), and the GOP, all of which weight Democrats too heavily; and the Shy Tory effect, which is to say that many people are embarrassed to admit, even to a pollster, that they like Trump. I suspect that the Shy Tory effect was at work in England again, explaining the ruling class's absolute shock that the Brexit vote went to "Leave."

JoshuaPundit:The speech itself was so on target that it shocked a lot of people...a sign of how used we've become to our political figures lying to us and avoiding the obvious. The Clintonista media tried to downplay it of course, but failed miserably. CNN in particular wound up with egg all over its porcine face when they 'fact checked' Trump's claim about Mrs. Clinton okaying the sale of a large chunk of America's uranium uranium holdings to Russia, in exchange for the funneling of $145 million from nine investors to the Clinton Foundation as 'false'. They later had to eat their words publicly.

The campaign itself has taken an interesting turn. Here we have a Republican nominee who won overwhelmingly with record numbers and did it in part by doing exactly what the GOP always claimed it wanted, getting more black, Hispanic and crossover Democrat support. But of course, all that became insignificant when it involved an outsider insurgent candidate who couldn't be bought and controlled. So Trump's biggest problem isn't defeating Hillary Clinton - given how the publicly released polls are being cooked, I'd say the real numbers are a lot different than the six point average spread Real Clear Politics is showing. His real problem is the 'friendly' fire at his rear from the GOP establishment. And the narrative they're pushing is strikingly familiar to me.

Trump is being criticized for not being able to raise money or put together a campaign staff. Isn't it logical that a candidate who wants to end the flow of cheap labor coming across the border, clamp down on outsourcing and and renegotiate ruinous trade deals and globalization might have trouble getting support from the donor class who profit from these things and from the politicians and pundits they own? The only big ones willing to publicly put country before their own greed and self interest so far are Sheldon Adleson, Rupert Murdoch and some of Trump's friends like Carl Icahn.

The same thing applies to building a campaign staff. In the face of threats from the GOP establishment that their careers are over if they sign on to Trump's campaign, a lot of political operatives and potential staffers have decided that employment opportunities with down ticket campaigns and even anti-Trump organizations funded by the donor class like Free The Delegates that are a lot safer for them.

Trump's also being urged to make concessions 'to unify the party.' But what if they don't want to be unified? What if they'd rather see business as usual with a President Clinton? All of the candidates signed a pledge early in the campaign that they would all support whoever the eventual nominee was. Out of the major candidates, the only one to keep his word was Marco Rubio, and the Republican National Committee (RNC) has done nothing about it.

A quarter of a billion dollars was spent to stop Donald Trump from getting the nomination, much of it in the form a relentless negative attack ads. Yet in his victory speech in New York, Trump went out of his way to extend an olive branch to his opponents, especially Ted Cruz. Imagine how different the current climate might be if Ted Cruz had accepted that, swallowed his bitterness and kept his word.When I say that what's going on here is strikingly familiar to me, it's because it reminds me of what's been happening in the Middle East. Israel was and is the victim of aggression, terrorism and constant incitement, yet it is Israel whom is repeatedly being asked to make concessions, release convicted murderers and to give up land no matter how many genuine offers of peace get slapped away by the Arabs. And when that happens, it's usually Israel who gets blamed for not being 'flexible' enough. If they were as 'flexible' as President Obama wanted, they would soon no longer have a country.Trump's getting a similar treatment. Any Republican nominee could count on being labeled as a racist, a homophobe and a hater of women by the Democrat minions in the media no matter what he did or didn't say, but here, they're getting ample assistance from the GOP establishment. Because Trump's real crime is exactly what got him the nomination...his willingness to look at Islamist terrorism, globalization and illegal migration as problems that need desperately to be solved, along with plain speaking about Obama's agenda and the damage it has done to America. For him to change that stance significantly would destroy him as a viable candidate for those whom support him.If Trump gets the nomination - and I put the odds at 60-40 in his favor, just because he won by such a huge majority - I predict that his acceptance speech will remind Republicans of the consequences if they fail to unite and allow the Clintons back in the White House again. Here's hoping they listen, but based on their usual behavior, The Donald will likely have to fight that battle without them.We'll see...

Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason :If Donald Trump continues to speak as well as he did last week he could well become our next president. He did well and appeared more presidential than he has in the past. Trump needs to continue to stay on point; focusing on jobs, the economy, making sure we do not allow refugees into our country without a comprehensive vetting process, and preventing illegal aliens from coming here and draining our limited welfare programs and threatening the safety of Americans.

He should keep talking about Clinton’s corruption and untrustworthiness going as far back as her and her husband’s career in “public service.” He needs to attack her on her ties with Wall Street, her exorbitant speaking fees, her setting up a private server for her emails during her term as Secretary of State which jeopardized our national security, and her dealings and receipt of monies personally and through The Clinton Foundation from countries with horrific records of human rights violations and barbaric Islamic shari’ah in exchange for obvious favors granted through her position in government.

Hopefully he will stay focused and keep from making any comments the media will perceive and publicize as racist, bigoted, misogynistic and vulgar, especially going into the Republican National Convention next month. Trump must present himself as the president he promises he will be if elected; restoring the power to the people and tearing down the “rigged system” our government has become.

Well, there you have it.

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y'know?

Friday, June 24, 2016

The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast, and the results are in for this week's Watcher's Council match up.

"Americans have the right to choose to be unarmed and helpless. Be my guest." - Ted Nugent

“The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.” - Jeff Cooper, Art of The Rifle

"There are no dangerous weapons. There are only dangerous men."- Robert A. Heinlein

This week's winning essay,Stately McDaniel Manor'sA Post-Orlando AR-15 Primeris one of those rare gems of the blogosphere - a very well written, compact, information packed source of practical knowledge by someone who knows what he's talking about. Here's a slice:

The recent Jihadist slaughter of Americans in Orlandois a crisis Mr. Obama and his sycophantic minions are determined not to allow to go to waste. Accordingly, he has come up with a typically Obamite plan to deal with Islamist terror: disarm law-abiding Americans who pose no threat to anyone. Fox News reports:

Being tough on terrorism — particularly the sorts of homegrown terrorism that we’ve seen now in Orlando and San Bernardino — means making it harder for people who want to kill Americans to get their hands on assault weapons that are capable of killing dozens of innocents as quickly as possible,’ Obama said in his weekly radio address. ‘That’s something I’ll continue to talk about in the weeks ahead.

Hillary Clinton, who has never seen an anti-liberty, gun control idea she did not embrace, was true to form:

Presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has also joined the fight to ban semi-automatic weapons, saying last week: ‘Weapons of war have no place on our streets.

Some Democrats, Liberal Republicans, and some in the media are calling for compromise, but compromise requires that each side surrender something. Such compromise is commonly presented as integral to “common sense gun safety” proposals, but what will anti-liberty forces surrender? They have nothing to offer, but they demand total surrender. How may fundamental, unalienable rights be compromised? How does one compromise on due process? How does one compromise on the right to keep and bear arms? Allow the abridgement of rights every other week only?

Professional anti-gun shock troops in the media and Congress have implied that the AR-15 and all of its variants are uniquely dangerous and commonly used in mass shootings and crime. This is abject nonsense. Rifles of all types are used in less than 3% of all shootings,and AR-15s in only a tiny portion of that already tiny portion of the firearm universe.

The AR-15 has been demonized, and will continue to be disparaged because the anti-gun movement has, for decades, worked to convince the public that any gun that looks like a machine gun must be a fully automatic weapon. One of the oldest tactics of these anti-freedom forces is to ban any gun, type of gun or accessory possible in the hope that such bans will be a foot in the door to eventual total bans of firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens.

Early M-16

With this in mind, I present a basic AR-15 primer in the hope that facts are the best antidote to lies. Anti-gunners often call the AR-15 a “high-powered” rifle, or an “assault weapon.” Both are entirely false. The AR-15 fires a rifle cartridge of intermediate power at best, and there is no such thing as an “assault weapon,” which is entirely an invention of anti-gun organizations and the media, though some states have used that language in gun banning legislation.

L to R: .22LR, 9mm, .223, .308

For an understanding of the relative size of the cartridges mentioned herein, here is a photo of four of the most common contemporary cartridges. From left to right, the .22 Long Rifle, the 9mm, the .223, and the .308. True high-powered rifle cartridges are on the order of the .308 and larger.

M1 Garand Battle Rifle

Battle Rifles: After WWII, the Army sought a replacement for the M1 Garand, a large and heavy rifle, firing an unquestionably high-powered cartridge, the .30 caliber 30.06. This–a high-powered, full-sized cartridge–is the defining characteristic of the battle rifle. Because of the power of these long-range cartridges, battle rifles tend to be heavy, weighing in the ten-pound range, and have been historically made of steel and wood, which has been replaced with plastics in the modern era. The M1 was the first generally issued semiautomatic battle rifle.

General George Patton called the Garand “the greatest battle implement ever devised,” but it did have drawbacks. Loaded, the weapon commonly weighed more than 11 pounds, and it did not use magazines, but metal clips holding only 8 rounds. The 30.06 is also a physically large and heavy cartridge, limiting the number of rounds a soldier can carry. The Garand remains the only widely available firearm that is actually fed via a clip, which term is commonly misused when one actually means “magazine.”

FN FAL Battle Rifle

After WWII, modernization efforts among western militaries nearly led to the American adoption of the excellent FN-FAL semiautomatic rifle in .308 caliber. Unfortunately, the “not invented here” syndrome prevailed and the US adopted the M-14, which was essentially an M1-Garand in the somewhat smaller .308 cartridge, with a flash hider and a removable 20-round box magazine. This more or less forced NATO to adopt the .308. At around the same time, the British were experimenting, to good effect, with sub-.30 caliber cartridges.

M-14 Battle Rifle

The M-14 was the rifle that initially accompanied our troops in Vietnam. Its unsuitability as a general issue rifle for counter insurgency warfare, particularly fought in a jungle environment, quickly became obvious. The need for a lighter weapon capable of fully automatic fire–battle rifles are too light to be controllable in full-auto mode–and firing a smaller cartridge became obvious. One can carry far more .223 cartridges for the same weight and space than .308 cartridges.

StG44, the first assault rifle
credit:www.geocities.ws

Assault Rifles: The first true assault rifle was the German StG-44, first used in combat near the end of WWII. It was this rifle that was part of the inspiration for the ubiquitous AK-47, the most widely produced assault rifle in history. True assault rifles have these characteristics:
(1) Shoulder fired
(2) Gas operated (with a few well-known exceptions)
(3) Single-operator fired
(4) Removable magazine fed
(5) Firing an intermediate-sized cartridge
(6) Semiautomatic and full automatic (and/or burst) capability

Eugene Stoner, working for the ArmaLite Company (hence “AR”), developed the forerunner of the AR-15, the AR-10, in the mid 1950s. Like the AR-15 that followed it, it was made with aircraft grade aluminum and plastics, and had a very futuristic appearance. Unlike the AR-15 it was chambered for the .308 (finalized as the 7.62 NATO) cartridge. It competed against the M-14 and the FN-FAL in Army trials, but the Army adopted the M-14, and the AR-10 was scaled down to become the AR-15, which would ironically require the kind of intermediate cartridge the British wanted. A more detailed history of the development of the AR-15 can be found here.

It was the Air Force, not the Army, that initially adopted the AR-15, designated the M-16, for base security, in the iconic triangular hand guard configuration. The initial flash hider had a multi-pronged, open end, which was quickly found to catch on foliage, and was replaced with a closed end design as depicted here. Eventual redesigns of the rifle resulted in the round hand guard and the heavier barrel now standard on the military family of weapons. The .223 civilian cartridge was standardized as the 5.56mm NATO cartridge. While the cartridges have very similar dimensions, there are some caveats regarding their use. It is entirely safe to fire .223 cartridges in weapons chambered for 5.56mm, but the opposite may be unsafe in some circumstances. Those interested can find more detailed information here.

The Civilian AR-15: The AR-15 is the best-selling rifle family in America. However, it is not an assault rifle, and certainly not a non-existent “assault weapon,” which is best defined as any firearm anti-gun forces want to ban on any given day, particularly if it is black, or scary-looking to the uninformed. The standard military rifle has a barrel of approximately 20”, but the most popular civilian configuration resembles the military M-4, which is a short-barreled, fully automatic carbine with a collapsing stock. Civilian equivalents are not fully automatic firearms, and have barrels of no less than 16” to conform to federal law.

Let's just say that if you are an anti-Trumper or know someone who is, you owe it to yourself to read this one, redolent with the creator of Dilbert's cynical wit and knack for getting to the truth of the matter.

It might be noted that Scott Adams has endorsed Hillary Clinton, because 'I live in California and I fear for my physical safety.'

Here are this week’s full results. Only Fausta was unable to vote but was not subject to the usual 2/3 vote penalty for not voting :

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. and every Tuesday morning, when we reveal the weeks' nominees for Weasel of the Week!

And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it...or any of the other fantabulous Watcher's Council content.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y'know?

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Welcome to the Watcher's Council, a blogging group consisting of some of the most incisive blogs in the 'sphere, and the longest running group of its kind in existence. Every week, the members nominate two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council.Then we vote on the best two posts, with the results appearing on Friday morning.

Council News:

Stately McDaniel Manor got a great mention at Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion this week citing him for his fine work unmasking the Freddie gray Travesty. Kudos!

You can, too! Want to see your work appear on the Watcher’s Council homepage in our weekly contest listing? Didn’t get nominated by a Council member? No worries.

To bring something to my attention, simply head over to Joshuapundit and post the title and a link to the piece you want considered along with an e-mail address (mandatory, but of course it won't be published) in the comments section no later than Monday 6PM PST in order to be considered for our honorable mention category. Then return the favor by creating a post on your site linking to the Watcher’s Council contest for the week when it comes out on Wednesday morning

Simple, no?

It's a great way of exposing your best work to Watcher’s Council readers and Council members while grabbing the increased traffic and notoriety. And how good is that, eh?

Monday, June 20, 2016

Every week on Monday, the Council, members of the Watcher's Council Community and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher's Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week's question: What's Your Opinion Of Obama's Refugee Resettlement Program?

Angry White Dude : AWD has never understood the great need to resettle Muslim refugees (or any other ethnic or racial group) into the United States. What purpose do they serve the taxpayers who pay for resettlement? Do Muslim refugees have any great skill other than rape, murder, and destruction? I read where 75%+ of all refugees brought into America live on welfare. Plus, the cost is estimated to be $20,000 per refugee just to get them here.

There is much more than meets the eye here. Muslim countries aren’t accepting Muslim refugees. Only the West. Even the Republicans back and set aside funds to resettle Muslims. When Speaker Paul Ryan says he will sue President Trump if Trump bans Muslim immigration, we can pretty much surmise that someone way above Ryan and Congress is pulling the strings. Someone who, like Congress, doesn’t have the best interests of America in mind.

Someone made a comment on my blog this week that said radical Islam isn’t our enemy. We could destroy Islamic terrorism in six months if we wanted. Washington is our enemy. After all, they are making all this Muslim immigration possible at great cost and risk to Americans.

Stately McDaniel Manor: President Obama’s refugee resettlement program is simplicity in itself: let in people from Muslim nations torn with anti-civilization strife, wracked with Muslim against Muslim butchery, and almost unspeakable atrocities committed against Christians, Jews and non-Muslims. Ignore American immigration law, care nothing about whether any of these people will be contributors to America--producers rather than parasites--and don’t bother to vet them--it’s impossible anyway--knowing beyond any doubt that a significant number of them will take the path of Jihad against Americans on American soil.

The more fundamentally incompatible such people are with American representative democracy, the more Mr. Obama and progressives like it. Dump them throughout America and force the states to deal with them.

Forget the fact that this amounts to treason--giving aid and comfort to our enemies in time of war. Barack Obama is impervious to impeachment and his minions are impervious to prosecution. Forget the fact that the beliefs suffusing every fiber of the being of many of these people guarantees that not only will they make no attempt whatever to assimilate American culture, but will do all they can to subvert, overthrow and destroy it.

Mr. Obama cared nothing for these people when their own governments were slaughtering them. He drew red lines and then ignored them. Why then is he now pretending to care so much that he is welcoming thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of jihadists into America?

Votes. Progressivism depends entirely on a pliant, desperate population ready to vote to keep the free goodies coming. Who more desperate than foreigners with no skills, unable to find jobs in an Obama-created economy where nearly 1/3 of working age Americans no longer bother to seek jobs? Who more desperate than foreigners who do not speak the language, know nothing of the culture, and are dependent on the government for their bare existence, even as they plot to destroy that culture and obliterate the government?

If Barack Obama and his progressive enablers and puppet masters were trying to destroy America, what, apart from open civil war, would they be doing differently? This way, progressives can reap the same benefits and scream “racism” and “nativism” at their enemies, while demanding that law-abiding Americans be disarmed when jihadists murder Americans.

For Progressives, it’s the best of all possible worlds. For Barack Obama, it’s par for the course.

JoshuaPundit : Well the first thing to debunk here is that this isn't about 'refugees' at all. You might remember that President Obama's first major interview after he took office was with Al-Arabiya, in 2009 in which he stated that the United States was 'one of the biggest Muslim nations in the world."

That was very obviously not true then, with the CIA Online World Factbook of that time stating that America had well under 2 million Muslims, putting us at 58th out of the 60 most populous Muslim countries. Knowing that, as well as what I knew then about President Barack Hussein Obama my first thought was that it sounded like a goal. Since he took over, this president has imported a million Muslims into America, almost all of them from areas where an animus to western culture, Jews, non-Muslims, women and homosexuals is a given almost from birth. If they're allowed to stay, the Muslim population can be expected to triple in a very short time because of our family unification policies, de facto polygamy and Islam's prohibition of birth control. Another little known fact...because of this, it was written into ObamaCare that Muslim businesses and institutions were exempted from ObamaCare's mandate to provide birth control.They never had to go to court over it.

And the refugees the Obama Administration has been taking in from places like Syria are almost exclusively Muslims. Few if any Christian, whom are in a much more dire predicament are allowed in. So the idea this is about 'refugees' is ridiculous. It is about increasing the Muslim population of America. And changing America's demographics in certain areas, since they are mostly being 'settled' strategically in Red State areas in the heartland. Over 30 states, including Texas sued the feds for settling these 'refugees' in their states without even informing them of where they were being located or how many. That Texas suit was recently thrown out of court for lack of standing by a federal court judge, a George W. Bush appointee.

America's experience with taking in refugees has, by and large been beneficial. It worked well in the period from the mid-nineteenth century until the 1920's because the migrants were carefully vetted and we had no huge welfare state. They came from Ireland, East Asia and Central Europe first, and later from Greece Italy, Poland, the Baltic states, and Russia. They were escaping political turmoil, oppression and in many cases outright famine and grinding poverty at home. By and large, they had compatible cultures, worked hard to assimilate and fit in and became part of our American family.

I personally witnessed two such migrations that occurred even after our welfare state was established. The first one involved Vietnamese who fled communist rule and mostly settled in California and Texas. They literally came with nothing, but by the next generation they were established and their kids were frequently showing up as valedictorians. The Vietnamese, by the way, were mostly Christians. I had the pleasure of helping a group of them in Westminster, California obtain financing for their church. The second involved refugees from the fascist regime in Iran. This took place over the period between 1979 to the mid eighties. The refugees were mostly Persians connected with the Shah's regime, Persian Jews, Armenians, and Ba'hai. They too assimilated well.

Both groups mostly arrived with nothing and may have collected welfare for a short time, but got off it quickly because that's simply not how they see things. Both cultures are highly entrepreneurial, and value hard work and education. They fit America like a glove.

I mention them because the current crop of 'refugees' is exactly the opposite. They are unvetted, and see the welfare state as a bounty from the stupid kuffar, non-Muslims. Islam places severe constraints on entrepreneurs and capitalism, which is one reason the Muslim world is in decline today. Even the oil states are experiencing social turbulence as it gets harder to buy their way out with subsidies. Education, except for the Qu'ran is not particularity encouraged in most cases, especially for women. And their culture is completely antithetical to America'sn culture.

Yes, these refugees could easily have been settled in the Arab world. But Obama and certain EU governments want them in their countries, as loyal subjects who will vote for their continued benefits and the providers of those benefits.

The Glittering Eye : I think it's ill-conceived. There's one thing that He Who Must Not Be Named is right about: we don't need more immigrants, particularly immigrants who don't speak much English, may or may not have any marketable skills, and who are impossible to screen.

However, there is a group of Middle Easterners and West Asians that we should accept. There are about 50,000 Afghan and Iraqi translators who have helped us over the last 15 years. They have the advantages of speaking at least some English, being (presumably) reasonably favorably disposed towards us, and they've already been vetted at least as well as we can vet people in the Middle East and West Asia. And we owe them a debt of honor.

So, forget the Syrians. Let the Germans take them. We should expedite the visas of Iraqi and Afghan translators and their families. We owe it to them.

Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason : The Obama Administration’s refugee resettlement program completely and dangerously ignores its duty first and foremost to protect American citizens. Just this week CIA Director John Brennan advised us that ISIS/ISIL has plans to infiltrate and insert radical Islamic jihadists in a global terrorism campaign via these refugee routes.

The administration is bringing in tens of thousands of refugees despite massive opposition by the American people through unconstitutional presidential executive orders. In my state of Florida Governor Rick Scott appealed to the White House to provide information on the refugees being settled in our state. They told him no, that it would violate the privacy rights of the refugees. The states absolutely have the right and authority to refuse refugees unless and until we know who they are, where they come from, and their personal background and history.

In this last year of Obama’s second term as president we are seeing the fundamental transformation of America he promised as a candidate in 2008. This is civilization jihad combined with civilization suicide. This is giving aid and comfort to our enemies within the United States, the very definition of treason.

Well, there you have it.

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y'know?

Sunday, June 19, 2016

It's already well known that the Obama administration sent its top political operatives like Jeremy Bird, national field director for Obama’s 2012 campaign and and loads of cash via a front group called “One Voice International" in an effort to illegally influence Israel's elections. Obama's goal was to unseat Israeli PM Benyamin Netanyahu and Likud in favor of Yitzhak Herzog and the far Left marriage of Labor and Tzipi Livni's Hatnua party, known as the 'Zionist Union.'

While President Obama's hatred for Netanyahu is also well known, the real reason for his touting of Buji* and the Zionist Union went far beyond that. And the full story has just surfaced now.

As confirmed by a report yesterday by Israel's Channel 10, Ephraim Sneh, one of Herzog's advisers has admitted that Buji had a private and secret agreement with Palestinian strong man Mahmoud Abbas that he was prepared to put into place if Zionist Union had won as Obama planned, and he had been elected Prime Minister. This agreement largely mirrored what The Obama Administration was trying to force on Israel, and in fact that's why Buji made the agreement in the first place, to get Obama's support, money and political muscle to try and make sure it happened.

As Buji admitted when confronted on this yesterday, here's what this 'deal' consisted of:

A full withdrawal by Israel to the pre-1967 lines and the removal of every Jew living in Judea and Samaria. East Jerusalem was to be ceded to the Palestinian Authority as its capitol. There was a provision for land swaps on 4% or so of the territory to allow for Jewish communities like Gush Etzion, but cut off from Israel by Palestinian East Jerusalem in front of them and surrounded by 'Palestinian' territory in the rear, I'll leave it to your imagination how long those communities would last.

Buji also agreed to the right of return for Palestinian 'refugees' and financial compensation for those whom chose not to return. No mention, of course, of any compensation for the almost 1 million Jewish refugees resettled in Israel whom were ethnically cleansed from the Arab world after everything they owned was plundered.

Another part of the agreement Buji signed on to was a 'symbolic presence' of Israeli security forces in the strategic Jordan Valley, with most of the security forces being composed of Jordanian and Palestinian forces. Again, I'll leave it to your imagination how long that would last before the unlucky IDF soldiers serving in the Jordan Valley were murdered or taken hostage, with any whom escaped being faced with a retreat through miles of hostile territory.

In other words, rather than a deal, it was a surrender to Mahmoud Abbas's wildest dreams.

When asked about it by Channel 10, here was Buji's reply:

“During the talks with the Palestinian Authority president in 2014, I made efforts aimed at reaching understandings that would have prevented the wave of terror that I anticipated, just like the efforts I am now making so that the abandonment of the initiative for a regional conference by the extreme right-wing government won’t lead us to another war.”

Can you imagine how much worse the casualties in that 'wave of terror' would have been if this servile snake had gotten his way? With the Arabs whom call themselves Palestinians controlling the high ground in Samaria and the Shomron as well as East Jerusalem?

And that initiative for a 'regional conference' which will not include Israel? What Herzog is pimping for amounts to a diktat in favor of Abbas and 'Palestine' sponsored by France, the Arab League and the EU, rather than the mandatory bilateral negotiations both Israel and the Palestinians agreed to as part of Oslo and the Road Map. That alone should give you an idea of what treaties with the Arabs whom call themselves Palestinians are worth...even if the casualty list since that devil's bargain with Arafat was made doesn't convince you.

This is exactly why Israel's toxic Left continues to lose support.

Fortunately, in spite of all the efforts and all the money spent to push it through, Buji and Obama's evil plan failed miserably, more proof indeed, if it was needed, that G-d does indeed protect Israel.

What this amounts to, aside from a lack of basic common sense is a collaboration with Israel's enemies. In America, part of U.S. law still on the books is the Logan Act, which prohibits private American citizens from making agreements with foreign powers. I'm unaware if Israeli law contains similar provisions, but if it doesn't it should.

President Obama has made a fetish out of trying to interfere with Democratic elections in Canada, Britain and Nigeria, where he got a former Muslim dictator Muhammadu Buhari back in power by withholding vital arms supplies, including helicopters, needed by Christian President Goodluck Jonathan to fight Boko Haram. Hundreds of Nigerian Christians died because their military was simply outgunned and incapable of fighting back, and Buhari ended up winning the election.

But nowhere else did President Obama attempt to actually facilitate the destruction of a country

As for Herzog, this alone should be an excellent reason to end his career in Israeli politics forever. His father, Chaim Herzog must be rolling in his grave with shame.

* In Hebrew, 'Buji' is slang for a little doll or toy. In an interview with MK Herzog's mother, she unfortunately revealed that this was her pet name for him as a child and in view of his extremely diminutive stature, Yitzhak Herzog has been stuck with it ever since. It is not considered a term of endearment by most Israelis whom use it to refer to MK Herzog. Nor does Yitzhak Herzog care for it in the least.

Friday, June 17, 2016

The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast, and the results are in for this week's Watcher's Council match up.

"There is no such thing as moderate Islam. There is only Islam and not Islam" - The'Blind Sheikh' Omar Abdel-Rahman, Doctor Of Qu'ranic studies, Al-Azhar University, Egypt.

"Those who believe, and adopt exile, and fight for the Faith, in the cause of Allah as well as those who give (them) asylum and aid,- these are (all) in very truth the Believers: for them is the forgiveness of sins and a provision most generous." - Qu'ran, Surah Al-Anfal, 74

“The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam” - President Barack Hussein Obama

This week's winning essay,Joshuapundit'sWho's To Blame For Orlando? Is my reaction not just to the attack itself but to the reaction to the attack. And it includes a few points I haven't really seen seen mentioned or commented on anywhere else. Here's a slice:

A few separate events, all in the same few days...a man guns down 50 people in an Orlando, Florida night club, another man is arrested in Sacramento, California with a list of targets, still another man is shot dead by police after taking hostages in Amarillo, Texas, and still another man murdered two people in Magnanville, France and posted picture of the murders on Facebook.

Is there a thread connecting these incidents? Why of course there is, JFA, Jihad for Allah. And Ramadan is a special time for this kind of activity.

Of course, the usual suspects would not want any mention of that sort of thing! The news media, our president, the presumed Democrat nominee and the Leftist punditocracy had far more interesting things to blame...America's supposed lack of gun control and in the case of Orlando, homophobia, of course. The execrable New York Daily News actually ran a photo of the carnage with the headline 'Thanks, NRA' while the head of our misnamed Department of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson said that disarming Americans is now a matter of national security badly needed to keep Americans safe.

You literally can't make this stuff up.

The 'gun control' argument is ludicrous in and of itself. One of the Orlando victims actually texted his mother to tell her goodbye because the jihadi was coming towards him. Rest assured that young man would have given anything he owned for a loaded, working firearm in his hand and the ability to use it at that tragic, life ending moment.

Jihadis like Omar Mateen as well as ordinary criminals will always be able to obtain guns by theft, smuggling, buying them on the black market or even by making guns themselves. They could care less about laws. France has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, but that didn't stop jihadis from killing over a hundred disarmed people in Paris using fully auto AK47s.

So if guns aren't to blame, how about homophobia? There are a couple of things awry with that. First, we know the following at this point: that Mateen himself was a homosexual whom was actually familiar with the gay nightclub he shot up, and that he also cased several other targets, including Orlando's Disney World.

Thanks to how our media silences certain things about the Religion of Peace, one fact that isn't well known is how certain shaheeds, martyrs are recruited. In 'Palestine' as well as in AfPack and Iraq, young women and yes, homosexuals have been recruited as suicide bombers by jihadis because they are deemed less likely to be caught. In these places, there have been several instances of older women caught setting up young girls to be gang raped and then blackmailed with the choice of redeeming themselves by becoming shaheeds or facing murder by their families in an honor killing. The same thing has been done before with male homosexuals whom face the death penalty if outed, particularly in AfPak.

If Omar Mateen was focusing on murdering gays, there would be no reason for him to scope out other,non-gay targets. His first wife, school classmate and second wife have both revealed that it was known that Omar was homosexual and that he had perused gay dating sites on the internet. Rather than outright Muslim homophobia, I think it's likely he was outed and blackmailed. And then, since Disney World has fairly tight security, he simply picked the softer target, one where he was known and was familiar with.

In any event, since the Obama Administration has already imported almost one million Muslims 'refugees' and increasing from countries where homophobia, along with other things incompatible with a free society is an established part of the culture and the religion and since Mrs. Clinton is quite open about wanting to increase those numbers if she's elected, isn't it a bit awkward of them to bash homophobia verbally in America while working so hard to increase it? Of course, the media isn't going to ask them such an awkward question. And of course, it's definitely a question homosexuals ought to be asking themselves before they vote Democrat, but I digress.

So, if we can't blame guns and homophobia, what's left? Can we blame Islam? ISIS? I don't think so, not really.

And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it...or any of the other fantabulous Watcher's Council content.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y'know?